THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus RAJ MARKETING & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 26-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 10 S.C.R. 722 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJ MARKETING & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1119 of 2010) 
AUGUST 26, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged 
Commodities) Rules, 1977 - Rule 2(x) -
"Wholesale 
C package" - Declaration to be made on every wholesale 
package• - Held: In order to attract violation of the Rules, the 
package seized must fall within the expression "wholesale 
package"·- A package used merely for protection during 
conveyance or safety would not be pre-packed commodity for 
D the purpose of the Act and the Rules - For the package to 
be treated as a wholesale package, the package must not be 
a secondary package - The secondary outer packing for 
transportation or for safety of the goods being transported or 
delivered cannot be described as a wholesale package -
E Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. 
The respondent is a firm carrying on the business of 
buying and selling various products. The second 
appellant/ Inspector of Legal Metrology visited the first 
F . respondent's godown and seized various packages of 
packed commodities such as Candy man, Minto-Fresh, 
Kitchens of India, Badam Halwa and Ashirvaad Atta etc. 
vide seizure memo. The reason for seizure, according to 
him, was that on the wholesale packets, the details 
regarding the name and addresses of the manufacturer, 
G cost, month, year etc. was not declared and also the retail 
sale price was not mentioned which was in violation of 
the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged 
Commodities).Rules, 1977. A show cause notice was 
H 
722 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. v. RAJ . 
723 
MARKETING & ANR. 
issued by the appellant to the respondent for violation of A 
Section/Rule 33 and 39 read with Rule 23(1) and 6 of the 
Rules. It was mentioned in the said notice that the offence 
was compoundable as per Section 73 of the Standards 
of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Section 65 of the 
Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 
B 
1985. The respondents replied to the said notice and 
thereafter filed Writ Petition, inter alia, for quashing the 
seizure memo and notice. 
The High Court allowed the writ petition by holding 
C 
that the packages containing Candy man, Minto-Fresh, 
Kitchens of India, Badam Halwa and Ashirvaad Atta are 
not wholesale package within the definition of the 
expression "wholesale package" under Rule 2(x) of the 
Rules. Questioning the said order of the High Court, the 
0 
State filed the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : Rule 2(x) of the Standards of Weights and 
Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 define 
E 
"wholesale package" while Rule 29 of the Rules concerns 
"declaration to be made on every wholesale package" . 
. In order to attract violation of the said Rules, the package 
seized must fall within the expression "wholesale 
package". A package used merely for protection during 
F 
conveyance or safety would not be pre-packed 
commodity for the purpose of the Act and the Rules. As 
rightly observed by the High Court that for the package 
to be treated as a wholesale package, the package must 
not be a secondary package. In that event, one has to find 
G 
out whether the secondary package is only for safety, 
convenience or the like. As demonstrated before the High 
Court, the 1st respondent placed all the products before 
this· Court i.e. both the wholesale package as well as the 
retail package. The Department's only contention was 
H 
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 10 S.C.R 
A that the secondary package In which the wholesale 
package was packed does not contain the said 
Information. In the light of the statutory provisions and 
on verification of the products shown, it is clear that the 
secondary outer packing for transportation or for safety 
B of the goods being transported or delivered cannot be 
described as a wholesale package. [Paras 7, 8 and 9) 
[726-D-H; 727-C-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
C 1119 of 2010 etc. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.12.2006 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2982 of 
2006. 
D 
Vijay Hansaria, U.U. Lalit Shekhar Naphade, K.V. 
Viswanathan, Chinmoy Khaladkar, Snajay Kharde, Asha 
Gopalan Nair, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Amit Singh, G. Sabharwal, 
Aneesh Sah, Brij Kishore Sah, Pranab Kumar Mullick, Niraj 
Singh, Soma Mullick, Meenakshi Middha, Saneha Kalita, Kavita 
E Wadia, Bhargava V. Desai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.